SHRI RAM MURTHI PARASHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/44/2005HC RajasthanRJHC02036863200410 January 20174 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the addition of Rs. 1.00 lakh was based on concurrent findings of the lower authorities. The court observed that the department might not have been able to prove a specific marriage, but the assessment could have been based on the relevant year during which the search was conducted. The court found no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings. The issue was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that concurrent findings of fact by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal, supported by material on record (even if the exact purpose like marriage is not definitively proven), are generally upheld unless there is a substantial error of law or fact. The principle is that the Tribunal's findings, when based on evidence and consistent across lower appellate levels, are difficult to challenge in appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Ram Murthi Parashar, filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 1993-94 declaring an income of Rs. 2,48,957. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted at the assessee's residential premises on March 17, 1993, during which cash, jewelry, and valuable assets were found and seized. Cash of Rs. 2,16,871 was found, with Rs. 2,00,000 seized. The assessee was asked to explain the source of this cash. A document, purportedly an unsigned Will by the assessee's father, Shri Hari Charan Parashar, was found, suggesting the assessee might have contributed Rs. 1.00 lakh for marriages. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the assessee's income for Assessment Year 1993-94, confirmed by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is based on surmises and conjectures and not supported by any material whatsoever, particularly considering it was made on the ground that the assessee might have contributed the said sum for past or future marriages? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on the validity of the addition). Assessee's contention: The addition of Rs. 1.00 lakh should not be treated as income liability, considering the unsigned Will, and should be taken as inherited from his father. The document found was neither authentic nor ascertained by any authority, and there were contrary findings by the authorities below. Revenue's contention: The addition is justified due to concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. The Tribunal's finding, as recorded in para 6 of its order, noted that documents relating to trucks suggested they belonged to the assessee's late father, and the assessee was operating three trucks from September 20, 1992, deriving income. The Assessing Officer estimated income from truck plying at Rs. 1.70 lacs, not accepting the assessee's plea under Section 44AE or the plea regarding continuation of income after his father's death.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(1)(a),Section 143(2),Section 44AE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 44 / 2005 Shri Ram Murthi Parashar, S/o Shri Hari Charan Parashar, Mohalla Chatikhana, Karauli, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Sawaimadhopur Earlier Known As Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle-1(2), Jaipur having its office at Income Tax Office, Swaimadhopur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka. For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri J. 10/01/2017

1.

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged, the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee and confirm the order of the Assessing Officer.

2.

This Court while admitting the appeal on 25.10.2007, had framed the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether addition of Rs.1.00 lakh in the income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1993-94 by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that assessee might have contributed the said

(2 of 4) [ITA-44/2005] sum during the year even in respect of the marriages conducted in the past or to be conducted in the further, is based on surmises and conjectures and not supported by any material whatsoever?”

3.

The facts of the case are that the return was filed declaring income of Rs.2,48,957/- on 22.11.1993. The return was processed u/s.143(1)(a) on 24.11.1993. From the record it is seen that a search & seizure operation u/s. 132 was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 17.03.1993. In search incriminating documents, cash jewellery and valuable assets were found and seized. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 15.02.1994 followed by another notice u/s.143(2) dated 1.11.1995, 09.01.1996. A detailed questionnaire was issued on 9.2.1996 requiring the assessee to furnish explanation/evidences on the points as mentioned in the questionnaire. In response, Shri Ram Murti Parashar (assessee) Shri Arvind Sharma and Sh. Y. K. Sharma, CA & A/R attended the proceedings. Letter dated 16.02.1996 has been filed. The seized material has also been scrutinised. Case has been examined and discussed. In the return filed, the assessee has shown income from interest, truck plying and salary. As stated above in search cash of Rs.216871/- was found and out of this Rs.2,00,000/- was seized. The assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the cash of Rs.216871/-.

4.

Counsel for the appellant has contended that the document which was found when the search was conducted on the premises which reads as under:

(3 of 4) [ITA-44/2005] “olh;r fy[k nh gjhpu.k ikj’kj us jke eqrhZ dks xkMh ua 796/RRM jke ewrhZ vius uke [kqn o yM+ds ds uke djk ldrk gSA dksbZ 'kknh ds VkbZe ij ,d yk[k :i;k yh;k Fkk mldh ,ot esa xkM+h mlus nhuh gSaA ;g fy[kkdj fy[k nh dh lun jgs vkSj o[r t:jr ds dke vkosaA

gjhpj.k ikj’kj

5.

This is neither an authentic document nor any ascertaining is made by any of the authority and there are contrary findings by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

6.

Taking into consideration the evidence on record, counsel for the appellant has submitted that lac of Rs. may not be treated as income liability considering the unsigned Will and may be taken as inherited by him from his father.

7.

Counsel for the respondent Mrs. Parinitoo Jain has contended that in view of the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal who have assessed the same since search was conducted on 17.03.1993 for the same assessment year, he has taken the same. In that view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. In view of the concurrent finding, she has taken us to the finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal in para 6 which reads as under: “The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue at page 4 and 5 of the assessment order. The ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A) has discussed this issue at pages 2 to 5 of his order. The Assessing Officer had estimated income from trucks at Rs. 1.70 lacs. In the course of search, documents relating to Truck Nos. RRG2359 and RRM 756 were found which suggests that trucks belonged to late Shri Haricharan Parashar

(4 of 4) [ITA-44/2005] (father of the assessee) and from 20.9.1992, the assessee was playing three trucks and derived income. On the basis of seized materials/documents, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee enjoyed income from truck plying at Rs.1.70 lacs. The assessee had income of Rs.1.13 lacs for 4 months and the assessee’s income for 6 months was estimated at Rs. 1.70 lacs. The Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of the assessee for applying the provisions of Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act and also plea regarding continuation of the income after the death of his father late Shri Harichand Parashar in the hands of the assessee, his younger brother and his mother.”

8.

We have heard counsel for both the sides.

9.

Taking into consideration the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, merely because the department could not prove the marriage which has taken place, based the assessment could have been the relevant year during which the search was conducted. In our view, no case for interference in the concurrent findings is called for.

10.

The issue is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee.

11.

The appeal stands dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/61

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →